The Linacre Quarterly Volume 64 | Number 4
November 1997
Science, Ethics, and Cloning Technologies M. J. Iozzio
Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq Recommended Citation Iozzio, M. J. (1997) "Science, Ethics, and Cloning Technologies," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 64: No. 4, Article 3. Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol64/iss4/3
Article 3
Science, Ethics, and Cloning Technologies by M.J. Iozzio, Ph.D.
The author is an Assistant Professor at Barry University, Miami Shores, Florida, teaching bioethics, moral theology and feminist ethics She recieved her Ph.D. in Moral Theology from Fordham University in 1994. She is the aUihor a/Self-Determination an,d the Moral Act: A Study of the Contributions ofOdon Lotlin, O.S.B.
Recent reports of cloned sheep in Scotland have raised questions concerning the proposed and future uses of cloning technology. From the media and its inclination toward headline news, to op-ed reflections by local medical and academic professionals, to backyard musings between neighbors, thoughts of the possibility of human clones express excited tension. The tension between the public's awareness of scientific reality and science fiction is blurred for the moment by news of successful cloning. Relief of this tension requires a scientifically accurate and ethically sensitive response to those who cannot keep current of the fast pace of techriological developments in biomedical researcfi.--Wliile tne prospect of elening ourselves or superheroes or villains remains fantastic (and either fun or frightening to speculate), here I focus on questions that directly concern those future possibilities at a level that addresses the stages that lead to that future. Many sectors of society are rightly concerned over the possibilities that cloning presents. The evening television news and the morning papers reported the breakthrough, recognizing an issue of ethics that had not been considered previously by the media, as had physician-assisted suicide or abortion. However, neither professional 46
Linacre Quarterly
ethicists nor magisterial authority have been remiss in exploring the ethical implications of applying this and similar technologies to the human species.' In this analysis I will temper some of the more sensational claims of the media with a serious and more realistic look at the realities of current technological possibilities and their probabilities. Second, I will present some of the concerns that an ethical perspective raises in matters that affect us personally and as a society. And third, I will consider how the possibilities of applying this technology to the human species squares with Church teaching on manipulation of human embryos. Headline News vs. Scientific Reality The media have sensationalized the possibilities of human cloning with questions of a cloned Michael Jordan or Renee Russo, or, as the population of South Florida might fear, Fidel Castro. While these are ambitious questions, they belie the scientific reality. Science, thus far, presents little likelihood that the genetic material from any of these individuals would in fact produce another of them. The technological reality produces neither photo-copy duplicates nor adults. The technology that produced "Dolly" took DNA from an adult and inserted it into an ovum, which had its genetic nucleus removed;2 the cytoplasmic material from the donor ovum remained and still influences the development of the inserted DNA and of ten month old (as of this writing) "Dolly". 3 Additionally, the environmental conditions which greatly influence the adults that human babies become - parents, siblings, order of birth, friends, neighborhood, culture, schools, teachers, financial stability, etc. - could not be duplicated. Thus, even if science attempted the fantastic by cloning a human being, we have no guarantee nor reason to believe that the clone would be anything like the characteristics we prize or fear in the original. I do not want to seem naive by not considering potential abuses of this technology. Many people, professional and lay, concentrate on possible abuses of technologies - the technological imperative must not be ignored, it drives the research scientist to questions. The scientist asks: "What happens when (not if) ... we insert, we deprive, we manipulate human genetic material?" The ethicists, on the other hand, November, 1997
47
ask in response to. the research agenda: "What are we do.ing to. o.urselves with this o.r that actio.n o.r techno.lo.gical possibility, and why?" Further, if histo.rical precedents ·indicate in any way future pro.babilities, the transitio.n fro.m fro.gs, mice, sheep, Co.ws, and mo.nkeys to. human beings is likely.4 Wo.uld the human clo.nes be develo.ped fo.r purpo.ses similar to. tho.se engaged by the agricultural industry to. pro.duce prime sto.ck? Beware, befo.re the clo.ning o.f human individuals beco.mes genuinely pro.bable, bo.th ethics and science need to. co.nsider establishing bo.undaries that wo.uld prohibit just such a sensatio.nal and Co.stly end. Caution: People are Subjects, not Objects
One o.fthe co.ncerns o.fthe ethical project co.nsiders appropriate ways o.ftreating o.urselves individually and o.fbeing to.gether so.cially. One of these ways pro.hibits reducing perso.ns, who. are pro.perly subjects, to. o.bjects fo.r manipulative use o.r dispo.sal. 5 The research techno.lo.gy o.f clo.ning makes the species under study the o.bject o.f its manipulatio.n interest. But, ,applying this techno.lo.gy to. the human species, human beings beco.me the o.bject o.f research manipulatio.n. That is, when we reduce o.urselves to. o.ur genetic material as clo.ning techno.lo.gy requires and subject "it" to. techno.lo.gical imperatives, we are o.bjectified. And, beco.ming the o.bject o.f manipulatio.n, we beco.me dispo.sable just like all the o.ther o.bjects o.f research. A related co.ncern arises o.ver artificial repro.ductive techno.lo.gies. Artificial means o.f repro.ductio.n have circumvented co.nditio.ns o.f infertility fo.r many hetero.sexual co.uples, single perso.ns, and gay wo.men and men who. have quite deliberately answered a call to. parentho.o.d. These techno.lo.gies manipulate the gametes (o.vum and sperm) of the spouses to.ward fertilizatio.n,-orintro.du~e the gametes o.f a do.no.r, o.r acquire bo.th gametes fro.m do.no.rs to. pro.duce an embryo.. The embryo.s, o.nce sufficiently develo.ped, are transferred to. the co.ntracting wo.man o.r surro.gate fo.r gestatio.n. In the do.no.r cases the genetic inheritance o.fthe embryo. is extra-familial. The po.ssibility o.f clo.ning o.neself may be an attractive alternative to. the do.no.r case fo.r perso.ns co.nsidering bo.th parentho.o.d and their genetic future as it co.uld be expressed in o.ffspring. Ho.wever, treating do.no.r and surro.gates in no.nperso.nal ways and o.nly as bearers o.f reproductive material that can be bo.ught affro.nts individual dignity by a reductio.n fro.m subject to. 48
Linacre Quarterly
object; treating other human beings via cloned genetic material affronts likewise. Consider this analogy, which addresses both objectification and disposal concerns: prostitutes are the objects of a client's sexual gratification. Prostitutes are explicitly devalued as persons by their clients and their pimps by the ways in which they are manipulated like objects in the market - being bought and sold. Prostitutes have been taught to believe that their bodies (by extension, their very selves) are the "goods"/objects for sale. When the "goods" are damaged or old or in any other way no longer gratifying, they are disposed of as so much unwanted or broken merchandise. The buying and selling of persons, whether for sex, surrogacy, genetic material, or any other kind of manipulation, is prostitution. The objectification of human genetic material for the express purpose of cloning another self prostitutes it (and the person that human genetic material becomes) by its progress toward unwarranted manipulation and disposal not unlike that of the aged prostitute. Many disapprove of prostitution because it is tantamount to the buying and selling of human flesh with the inherent devaluation of the person who, through prostitution, is reduced to an object, a market product. Many ought likewise disapprove of human cloning, which quite readily devolves into the marketing of those future cloned persons. Does the clone of an Elie Wiesel, a Jimmy Carter, a Mother Hale go to the highest bidder, for example? Do we want to be the buyers and sellers of persons in the guise of the clone? Do we really want to treat our (future) selves as products in this way? Juxtaposing Church Teaching
The Church's Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (SCDF, 1987), Donum Vitae (1987), and The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) restate the teaching that human life begins and must be protected from the moment of conception. By juxtaposing this fairly consistent teaching (based on the scientific evidence available at a given point in history) onto the technological cloning of human embryos, a strict prohibition arises. The kind of reproduction cloning involves and the experimental procedures not directly therapeutic to the individual human embryo as November, 1997
49
subject violate the sanctity of life in its origin and development. The teachings clearly distinguish therapeutic intervention from experimental manipulation or exploitation upon the embryo stages of fetal development. The technology of cloning human embryos v. adult genetic material would constitute manipulation certainly, exploitation probably. Industrial scale cloning of embryos for the purposes of gaining ever more accurate predictors of therapeutic progress would not be tolerated. The Church only allows therapeutic experimentation upon an embryo for the hopeful benefit of that particular embryo in its continued and successful development. 6 However, the teachings do not prohibit experimentation on genetic material itself, in contradistinction to the embryo or the complete individual genome if it were to be artificially reproduced. Thus, the Church rejects the prospect of human cloning on the basis of the teaching on the sacral dignity of procreative activity between spouses and on the respect due the human life from the union of gametes (fertilization/conception) until death. On Limits and Alternatives Many already know that our species is quite marvelous, in fact human beings are technological wizards. I caution, however, that wizards are often portrayed as self-destructive. Nevertheless, wizardry that is right reasoning looks for and pursues activities that will contribute to human flourishing while avoiding those that jeopardize. Thus, in asking whether or not the prospect of human clones contributes to or jeopardizes the dignity of persons or the future of our communities, insight will be gained into the extent to which this technology should be applied. If I am correct that cloning human -genetic materi-al--far- the purp()ses of producing another individual is equal in intent to the buying and selling of persons, then that technology will eventually consume us and should not be so engaged. We will, in the bodies of our future clones, become products and persons no more. The future so envisioned would include a shopping market of clones as well as a stock option in the commodities trading market of the London, the New York, and the Tokyo Exchanges. I do not mean to suggest that cloning research in the human sphere should be stopped. However, boundaries must be established and alternative means considered which will address the medical 50
Linacre Quarterly
concerns that cloning research dares and presumes to remedy for the human species. Thus, set the limits of technological application 1) at the somatic (body cells) level of manipulation for experimental correction of pathologies, 2) at the germ-line (gamete cells) level to thwart a pathology's replication, and 3) at a research reserve level of cloned therapeutic cells, not embryos, for future intervention. But we should never allow the cloning of individuals - we ought not 9ispose ourselves to this kind of manufacture. Even Ian Wilmut, the Scottish scientist responsible for "Dolly", rejects the very thought of applying this technology to cloning people. Some of the alternative responses to consider against the manipUlative purposes proposed for the technology would allay fears over the sensational headlines and welcome an ethics respectful of persons today and tomorrow. For example, some suggest that human clones would solve problems of both organ availability and compatibility. We could more easily increase the pool of organ donors through capital ad campaigns or other such devices and incentive programs to broaden the availability and subsequent likelihood of compatibility. Others suggest that human clones would guarantee a genetic continuity of descendants or a genetically engineered and superior next generation. We could decrease insistence on genetically related offspring by increasing the popularity and ease of adoption to satisfy the call to be parent; any other reason for wanting a child is morally suspect. We should deny any actively biotechnical interventionist eugenics program for its inherent discriminatory prejudice which assumed the truth-validity of a socially dependent construct of superiority. Finally, still others suggest that a bevy of identical cloned embryos would facilitate research reliability and increase experimentally therapeutic success. We could continue research in genetic manipulation and cellular intervention for the therapeutic relief of disformed genes with a reserve of cells yielding similar experimental results yet without the indignity inherent in the embryo category of research. The technological genie of cloning is out of the bottle; the genie must be minded with prudence. If we are genuinely interested in our future we must be intentional now about fashioning the stages leading to the future and that future itself in a way that attends to both the people we are and the people we want to become. To go about our business as if tomorrow November, 1997
51
will take care of itself, neither attending to the stages that lead to tomorrow or the kinds of people we might become, is foolhardy at best, dangerous at worst. If we do not want to envision a future with human clones we must ensure ourselves today that the technologically possible (even if as yet years from available) is not engaged. Tomorrow, the future, is today's business; ask any parent or financial planner for that matter about their children or their retirement fund. The future we fail to envision in the guise of a clone today will otherwise oppress us.
References I . See, for example, from ethicists, Kurt Bayertz, GenEthics: Technological Intervention in Human Reproduction as a Philosophical Problem ( Cambridgt: University Press, 1994); Arthur Caplan, Moral Matters (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1995); and most extensively, Andrew Kimbrell, The Human Body Shop(London: Harper Collins Religious, 1993). From the magesteriwn see Instruction of Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation", 1987 SCDF ;Donum Vitae, 1987; Catechism ofthe Catholic Church, 1994. 2. For more detailed information on this process, see Bruce Alberts, Nature, "Molecular Biology of the Cell" (Roslin Institute, 1994). 3. News of seven month old Dolly was fITst published in the popular press February 24, 1997, putting her birth sometime during the month of August, 1996. 4. These developments are traced in Kimbrell's book, The Human Body Shop. 5. Most simply, the categorical imperative of Kantian deontology engages subjects to treat all otlrers·withlTlutuaHy regarding respect as a "golden rule"; thus, never treat others as means only, but always as ends in themselves. Perhaps more poignantly, however, is an inherent offense to the justice due the other as an other. That is, not because ifI do some good (or harm) to you, you may in tum do a like thing to me but, because you are deserving this as a person. 6. See SCDF, 1.3.
52
Linacre Quarterly
